Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#4480989 - 07/02/19 11:09 AM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Gibsonm]  
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,786
JJJ65 Online cool
Member
JJJ65  Online Cool
Member

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,786
Czech Rep.
Originally Posted by Gibsonm


... As it is, we use VBS for Infantry centric training and SB for vehicle centric trg, in part due to those differences in fidelity.

So, we can finally expect engine stalling, gear shifting, individual tracks clutching/braking in SB Pro PE 4.1? woot

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4481015 - 07/02/19 03:03 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Gibsonm]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Woofie_Dog Offline
Junior Member
Woofie_Dog  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by Gibsonm
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
Originally Posted by Gibsonm
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
EDIT: Thinking about it a bit more I realize that a counter argument might be made regarding the new non playable content BUT as someone who has made game content in other sim's "without any prior knowledge" of modeling and has produced content in a matter of days/weeks (tanks for arma for example) is the reason I made the comments that I did.


Well I wouldn't necessarily claim that the tanks in ARMA hold a candle to the tanks in Steel Beast Pro PE.

Even the ones in VBS are poor comparisons to the ones on Steel Beasts Pro PE.


Ok ...I'll play your game...

Well I wouldn't necessarily claim that the Planes,helicopters,infantry,weapons,trucks,OPRFOR ARMOR(with exception of the T-72 and BMP),cars,ships,terrain,buildings,flora,animals,waters or editor, in Steel Beast Pro PE hold a candle to the Planes,helicopters,infantry,weapons,trucks,OPRFOR ARMOR(with exception of the T-72 and BMP),cars,ships,artillery,terrain,buildings,flora,animals,waters,or editor, in ARMA.

But in any case my point was in terms of time it takes to create assets.


Well its not my "game".

You said basically that a novice can make models in no time at all.

I'm saying that compared to Steel Beasts it shows.

If the AFVs in VBS / ARMA were any good, the ADF might use it more for vehicle orientated operations than we currently do. As it is, we use VBS for Infantry centric training and SB for vehicle centric trg, in part due to those differences in fidelity.



Alot of those 3rd party novice asset builders blow most of the assets in steelbeasts out of the water,I can think of one off the top of my head (RHS which they updated 4 times in 6 months) but that's a matter of opinion.As for VBS An American friend of mine I used to fly with works on radar systems for patriot and now on Apaches, once told me they use VBS to teach truck driving in another division, probably because they don't have to wait 1-3 years for something to get fixed.Here's a thought...hire RHS...they probably work for cheap considering they do a hell of a lot of work for FREE.

BTW..looks pretty good to me...and ohhh wait for it....YOU CAN SHOOT #%&*$# WITH IT.

. [Linked Image]

Last edited by Woofie_Dog; 07/02/19 04:35 PM.
#4481019 - 07/02/19 03:12 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ssnake]  
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,604
Ssnake Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Ssnake  Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,604
Germoney
Originally Posted by JJJ65
So, we can finally expect engine stalling, gear shifting, individual tracks clutching/braking in SB Pro PE 4.1? woot

Uh - no.
Steel Beasts has never been a driving simulation. While I admit that driving tanks is a bit of an art of its own, it's mostly older tanks that are really hard to drive well. The more modern examples are made to resemble the car driving experience that young soldiers might be most familiar with, aside from sheer size and the distinct lack of surround visibility. Most of tank driving concentrates on "not being a hazard in public traffic", to give the noivice driver an idea of his vehicle's dimensions so you don't run over traffic signs, parked cars, or people.

In any case, tank driving simulation requires an actual simulator on a motion platform with at least three (better six) degrees of freedom, and a lot more attention to detail as far as the vehicle's electrical system etc. are concerned, nothing that translates to "fun" on a desktop PC, as far as I am concerned.


Visit the home of Steel Beasts!
...the ultimate armor sim...
#4481125 - 07/03/19 09:26 AM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ssnake]  
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 981
Red2112 Offline
Member
Red2112  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 981
Airborn
While some might be proud of there assets and/or of BIS (BISim/VBS), the fact is that ARMA 3 has a bunch of bugs that never got fixed, that´s since 2013! While on the subject of land vehicles, the friction/traction to ground physics in ARMA 3 is more like riding a skateboard! In other words it plain sucks!

But hey, that´s just MY opinion!


Win10 Pro(x64), i7 8700k @ 4.7Ghz, 32GB ram DDR4, EVGA GTX 1070ti 8GB, M.2 PCIe NVMe (x2) 480GB + 960GB SSD´s, LG 29" Ultrawide 21:9 monitor, Logitech G13 and G502, TM Warthog HOTAS, CH Pro pedals, TrackIR 5.0, Corsair Void Pro 7.1 USB.
#4481148 - 07/03/19 11:43 AM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Woofie_Dog]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,513
VF9_Longbow Offline
Hotshot
VF9_Longbow  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,513
Tokyo, Japan
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
Originally Posted by Ssnake
Just goes to show that different priorities yield different products.


Yes yes...sadly...I have to agree totally in your defense since Bohemia did the ridiculously stupid idea of introducing Aliens into the arma world(and to that I say "#%&*$# them")...100 points to you.


The aliens idea was weird.

But I have to say, I recently played on a Zeus server where we had been playing normal missions all day and were getting a bit bored. Zeus apparently had the aliens DLC installed and he started using it.

Suddenly we show up at the LZ and an enormous god ray comes to earth. The smarter of the platoon got the hell out of there as fast as we could on a Little Bird then parachuted to safety behind some mountains where we watched from a distance.

Our other platoon mates who stayed near the primary target were soon making frantic radio calls as the entire world started spinning. The weather changed from a calm evening night to a raging cyclone with insane winds. The god ray then sent a massive energy pulse through the entire map, killing everyone near by, and sending shockwaves everywhere that knocked out helicopters and anything else not behind some terrain. Us mountain boys managed to survive it.

Totally ridiculous experience, but it was pretty neat for Zeus to have the tools to enable that, it really mixed up the game and made for a crazy and interesting hour or so of gameplay. When you consider the weirdness of parts of the original campaign, some parts of the aliens dlc aren't so far fetched. At least, if the mission creator uses the new tools carefully, they can be implemented very well to create a highly interesting and original style of gameplay.

And when you really think about it, there never really has been a realistic simulation of what humans should do if first contact ever were made.


Anyway, getting off topic. Glad to see this update Ssnake, and I think your base upgrade price was fair given the huge amount of new content. I am glad to see that eSim hasn't gone the DLC route. It seems like you guys have found a fair balance between timing of major upgrades and pricing them to fund additional content in the future.

It is a tricky thing to be able to keep upgrading an engine which has its roots based in 20+ year old code. IMO eSim's strategy ought to be a case study in careful marketing and good planning for the software and gaming industry. So often people want free upgrades because the updates are being made to software that has the same name as something the customer bought 2 - 4 years ago. It's very clear in the case of SB that each major update brings huge changes that are not only worth the upgrade money but obviously necessitate payment in order to keep the development pace as it is going into the future.

#4481186 - 07/03/19 02:05 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Red2112]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Woofie_Dog Offline
Junior Member
Woofie_Dog  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by Red2112
While some might be proud of there assets and/or of BIS (BISim/VBS), the fact is that ARMA 3 has a bunch of bugs that never got fixed, that´s since 2013! While on the subject of land vehicles, the friction/traction to ground physics in ARMA 3 is more like riding a skateboard! In other words it plain sucks!

But hey, that´s just MY opinion!



I TOTALLY agree,I will never understand how a software company(Bohemia) in that genre can get sooo much right....but get the obvious wrong. If they paid more attention to FCS's and physics they would rule .Esim is a one trick pony....they got their "trick" right.Most people that bought into Steelbeasts bought it for the FCS's on armor.Period.My issue with this upgrade is that we didn't get more of the very thing that they're known for.

Last edited by Woofie_Dog; 07/03/19 02:13 PM.
#4481195 - 07/03/19 02:40 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: VF9_Longbow]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Woofie_Dog Offline
Junior Member
Woofie_Dog  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by VF9_Longbow
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
Originally Posted by Ssnake
Just goes to show that different priorities yield different products.


Yes yes...sadly...I have to agree totally in your defense since Bohemia did the ridiculously stupid idea of introducing Aliens into the arma world(and to that I say "#%&*$# them")...100 points to you.


The aliens idea was weird.

But I have to say, I recently played on a Zeus server where we had been playing normal missions all day and were getting a bit bored. Zeus apparently had the aliens DLC installed and he started using it.

Suddenly we show up at the LZ and an enormous god ray comes to earth. The smarter of the platoon got the hell out of there as fast as we could on a Little Bird then parachuted to safety behind some mountains where we watched from a distance.

Our other platoon mates who stayed near the primary target were soon making frantic radio calls as the entire world started spinning. The weather changed from a calm evening night to a raging cyclone with insane winds. The god ray then sent a massive energy pulse through the entire map, killing everyone near by, and sending shockwaves everywhere that knocked out helicopters and anything else not behind some terrain. Us mountain boys managed to survive it.

Totally ridiculous experience, but it was pretty neat for Zeus to have the tools to enable that, it really mixed up the game and made for a crazy and interesting hour or so of gameplay. When you consider the weirdness of parts of the original campaign, some parts of the aliens dlc aren't so far fetched. At least, if the mission creator uses the new tools carefully, they can be implemented very well to create a highly interesting and original style of gameplay.

And when you really think about it, there never really has been a realistic simulation of what humans should do if first contact ever were made.


Anyway, getting off topic. Glad to see this update Ssnake, and I think your base upgrade price was fair given the huge amount of new content. I am glad to see that eSim hasn't gone the DLC route. It seems like you guys have found a fair balance between timing of major upgrades and pricing them to fund additional content in the future.

It is a tricky thing to be able to keep upgrading an engine which has its roots based in 20+ year old code. IMO eSim's strategy ought to be a case study in careful marketing and good planning for the software and gaming industry. So often people want free upgrades because the updates are being made to software that has the same name as something the customer bought 2 - 4 years ago. It's very clear in the case of SB that each major update brings huge changes that are not only worth the upgrade money but obviously necessitate payment in order to keep the development pace as it is going into the future.



I have to agree here also...kudos to Bohemia for Pro-actively going for dollars to create new content(but they could have done it in a different way...one that was conducive to their user base,ie a military theme not a SI-FI one)And I`m sue your aware that this IS a controversy in the arma world.
And yes it IS a tricky thing to upgrade 20 year old code...which is why they should have done it 15 years ago.
As for the DLC thing...mmmm...I dunno...If I could buy a new tank today ,I would.And I'd pay just what I do in DCS.

Last edited by Woofie_Dog; 07/03/19 02:46 PM.
#4481197 - 07/03/19 02:44 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ssnake]  
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,604
Ssnake Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Ssnake  Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,604
Germoney
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
Most people that bought into Steelbeasts bought it for the FCS's on armor.Period.My issue with this upgrade is that we didn't get more of the very thing that they're known for.


...because sometimes everything has to change, so everything can stay the same. This is one of those moments. You can run headlong into a dead end, which is unfortunate at best - and plain stupid if you know that it's a dead end. I'd rather be anything but.


A code base as old as Steel Beasts needs to be modernized. Inevitably all energy devoted to such modernization will be subtracted from work on "marketable feature upgrades". But focusing on what's marketable is a certain path into a dead end. As much as I don't want eSim's innovation culture not be technology-dominated, but driven by training requirements, it is no secret that you must adopt new technology without hesitation if the necessity is identified. Companies that shy the risks that are involved with such a strategy - and those risks are very real - will eventually stagnate and die. The true art of managing a software company without being a software guy yourself is to reign in the technological risks in a way that it doesn't block technological progress. Needless to say, all such decisions are made under uncertainty. Ideally you find a way that identifies errors as early as possible so you still have time to correct your course. That we learned about the problem with the first iteration of the new terrain engine only in May 2016 was unfortunately much later than ideal.


Visit the home of Steel Beasts!
...the ultimate armor sim...
#4481199 - 07/03/19 02:54 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Woofie_Dog]  
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,604
Ssnake Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Ssnake  Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,604
Germoney
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
And yes it IS a tricky thing to upgrade 20 year old code...which is why they should have done it 15 years ago.


Sorry, but this is the part where we will disagree because you don't know enough about eSim Games and the Steel Beasts code base to form an informed opinion. 2004 we did upgrade old code - we've been constantly doing so - by replacing the old software based renderer of Steel Beasts 1.0 with a hardware accelerated engine. We switched from DirectX 7 to DirectX8, then DirectX 9 before the Personal Edition was released. If that wasn't a major code base upgrade I don't know what would count for one. With version 2.5 we introduced daylight changes, for version 3.0 we rewrote the OpenGL based Viper Engine for use with Steel Beasts, and with version 4.1 we rewrote the whole lighting code (as can be seen most dramatically with all the trees). The idea that we're using the same render engine since 1999 is demonstrably false.

We have just refused to let our innovation process be technology-driven. Rather we have looked at things that were essential to improve the utility value of Steel Beasts in training, and then chosen the necessary steps in the tech field to enable such changes. Apparently some people still haven't realized that when I told the public since 2005 that Steel Beasts Pro is no longer a game, I actually meant it. Don't let the name betray you, eSim Games is a training company.


Visit the home of Steel Beasts!
...the ultimate armor sim...
#4481200 - 07/03/19 02:59 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ssnake]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Woofie_Dog Offline
Junior Member
Woofie_Dog  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by Ssnake
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
Most people that bought into Steelbeasts bought it for the FCS's on armor.Period.My issue with this upgrade is that we didn't get more of the very thing that they're known for.


...because sometimes everything has to change, so everything can stay the same. This is one of those moments. You can run headlong into a dead end, which is unfortunate at best - and plain stupid if you know that it's a dead end. I'd rather be anything but.


A code base as old as Steel Beasts needs to be modernized. Inevitably all energy devoted to such modernization will be subtracted from work on "marketable feature upgrades". But focusing on what's marketable is a certain path into a dead end. As much as I don't want eSim's innovation culture not be technology-dominated, but driven by training requirements, it is no secret that you must adopt new technology without hesitation if the necessity is identified. Companies that shy the risks that are involved with such a strategy - and those risks are very real - will eventually stagnate and die. The true art of managing a software company without being a software guy yourself is to reign in the technological risks in a way that it doesn't block technological progress. Needless to say, all such decisions are made under uncertainty. Ideally you find a way that identifies errors as early as possible so you still have time to correct your course. That we learned about the problem with the first iteration of the new terrain engine only in May 2016 was unfortunately much later than ideal.


DUDE ...you got 2 products...one military one civilian....build a tank ...sell the tank... to us,the civilians, to pay for the others development. It`s not rocket science.

#4481218 - 07/03/19 05:09 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Woofie_Dog]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Ronin_germany Offline
Junior Member
Ronin_germany  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
Originally Posted by Gibsonm
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
Originally Posted by Gibsonm
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
EDIT: Thinking about it a bit more I realize that a counter argument might be made regarding the new non playable content BUT as someone who has made game content in other sim's "without any prior knowledge" of modeling and has produced content in a matter of days/weeks (tanks for arma for example) is the reason I made the comments that I did.


Well I wouldn't necessarily claim that the tanks in ARMA hold a candle to the tanks in Steel Beast Pro PE.

Even the ones in VBS are poor comparisons to the ones on Steel Beasts Pro PE.


Ok ...I'll play your game...

Well I wouldn't necessarily claim that the Planes,helicopters,infantry,weapons,trucks,OPRFOR ARMOR(with exception of the T-72 and BMP),cars,ships,terrain,buildings,flora,animals,waters or editor, in Steel Beast Pro PE hold a candle to the Planes,helicopters,infantry,weapons,trucks,OPRFOR ARMOR(with exception of the T-72 and BMP),cars,ships,artillery,terrain,buildings,flora,animals,waters,or editor, in ARMA.

But in any case my point was in terms of time it takes to create assets.


Well its not my "game".

You said basically that a novice can make models in no time at all.

I'm saying that compared to Steel Beasts it shows.

If the AFVs in VBS / ARMA were any good, the ADF might use it more for vehicle orientated operations than we currently do. As it is, we use VBS for Infantry centric training and SB for vehicle centric trg, in part due to those differences in fidelity.



Alot of those 3rd party novice asset builders blow most of the assets in steelbeasts out of the water,I can think of one off the top of my head (RHS which they updated 4 times in 6 months) but that's a matter of opinion.As for VBS An American friend of mine I used to fly with works on radar systems for patriot and now on Apaches, once told me they use VBS to teach truck driving in another division, probably because they don't have to wait 1-3 years for something to get fixed.Here's a thought...hire RHS...they probably work for cheap considering they do a hell of a lot of work for FREE.

BTW..looks pretty good to me...and ohhh wait for it....YOU CAN SHOOT #%&*$# WITH IT.

.]


The problem with ArmA and the Arma mods is, that i have yet to find one mod that even comes clsoe to the quality that steelbeasts delivers.
That I mean in the sense of replication of the FCS , damage and ammunition effects model. Also ArmA is not able to handle the units sizes that SB can bring to a map...and will not even start about AI movement and engagement routines.

As for the DLC idea: that will bring a lot of issues with multi-player games. You'd have to make sure that who want to play together, have bought the same vehicle models. I'm no fan of that.


NEC CUPIAS, NEC METUAS
#4481224 - 07/03/19 05:35 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ronin_germany]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Woofie_Dog Offline
Junior Member
Woofie_Dog  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59


Careful not to confuse the argument...I'm not comparing the FCS's ...there's no contest.But the play-ability of most assets IS the argument. Simply put there should be more.Especially for OPFOR.Also if we compare TYPES of assets...arma wins hands down,ie a helicopter or AAA,or infantry etc etc.Its a long list.
As for the other issue of multiplayer\dlc there are two ways to address it.One way is like Bohemia did it ,or in DCS case,simply include an asset that most people own.In steelbeasts we already have an established set of assets.In DCS for example there's almost always a plane in a mission to fly on a server.Almost everyone owns Flaming Cliffs or they can buy one cheap(a FC plane costs what...5$ now?).Never really a problem...and when there is It's addressed pretty quick.I can't think of a time when I couldn't fly a mission on a public server due to not having a plane.And I've used DCS since day one. If you play with yer buddies,then I'm sure they can plop in a tank that you have.

In conclusion in my participation to this thread,I've said my piece...I'm not alone in my thinking that I can assure you as I've played and discussed this with many a veteran player.Now if there is a final video that ssnake is keeping under wraps for the release date that address my issues...then I will eat my words...but I think that is a pipe dream.

Last edited by Woofie_Dog; 07/03/19 06:28 PM.
#4481240 - 07/03/19 06:35 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Woofie_Dog]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Ronin_germany Offline
Junior Member
Ronin_germany  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog


Careful not to confuse the argument...I'm not comparing the FCS's ...there's no contest.But the play-ability of most assets IS the argument. Simply put there should be more.Especially for OPFOR.Also if we compare TYPES of assets...arma wins hands down,ie a helicopter or AAA,or infantry etc etc.Its a long list.
As for the other issue of multiplayer\dlc there are two ways to address it.One way is like Bohemia did it ,or in DCS case,simply include an asset that most people own.In steelbeasts we already have an established set of assets.In DCS for example there's almost always a plane in a mission to fly on a server.Almost everyone owns Flaming Cliffs or they can buy one cheap(a FC plane costs what...5$ now?).Never really a problem...and when there is It's addressed pretty quick.I can't think of a time when I couldn't fly a mission on a public server due to not having a plane.And I've used DCS since day one. If you play with yer buddies,then I'm sure they can plop in a tank that you have.

In conclusion in my participation to this thread,I've said my piece...I'm not alone in my thinking that I can assure you as I've played and discussed this with many a veteran player.Now if there is a final video that ssnake is keeping under wraps for the release date that address my issues...then I will eat my words...but I think that is a pipe dream.


And here we differ again: I rather have a well done playable vehicle, then a sloppy model(and yes, that requires a model of the FCS) like in ArmA. Because, where is the point to have those?

And the model question: In these games, you don't jump between units in game time, as it is often required and done in SB. You could not use realistic unit setups, but would have to make "rag tag mix" stuff of vehicles that people own.

Last edited by Ronin_germany; 07/03/19 06:37 PM.

NEC CUPIAS, NEC METUAS
#4481244 - 07/03/19 06:52 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ronin_germany]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Woofie_Dog Offline
Junior Member
Woofie_Dog  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by Ronin_germany
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog


Careful not to confuse the argument...I'm not comparing the FCS's ...there's no contest.But the play-ability of most assets IS the argument. Simply put there should be more.Especially for OPFOR.Also if we compare TYPES of assets...arma wins hands down,ie a helicopter or AAA,or infantry etc etc.Its a long list.
As for the other issue of multiplayer\dlc there are two ways to address it.One way is like Bohemia did it ,or in DCS case,simply include an asset that most people own.In steelbeasts we already have an established set of assets.In DCS for example there's almost always a plane in a mission to fly on a server.Almost everyone owns Flaming Cliffs or they can buy one cheap(a FC plane costs what...5$ now?).Never really a problem...and when there is It's addressed pretty quick.I can't think of a time when I couldn't fly a mission on a public server due to not having a plane.And I've used DCS since day one. If you play with yer buddies,then I'm sure they can plop in a tank that you have.

In conclusion in my participation to this thread,I've said my piece...I'm not alone in my thinking that I can assure you as I've played and discussed this with many a veteran player.Now if there is a final video that ssnake is keeping under wraps for the release date that address my issues...then I will eat my words...but I think that is a pipe dream.


And here we differ again: I rather have a well done playable vehicle, then a sloppy model(and yes, that requires a model of the FCS) like in ArmA. Because, where is the point to have those?

And the model question: In these games, you don't jump between units in game time, as it is often required and done in SB. You could not use realistic unit setups, but would have to make "rag tag mix" stuff of vehicles that people own.


They already committed that sacrilege with the chally .And lets face it...even a fully playable asset's fidelity isn't 100 percent in anyway shape or form(not compared to DCS anyway).But I see it as I do in DCS...A FC version of a Mig-29 is 100 times better than not having a Mig to fly.If I had a choice...of course I'd pick an A10C level version...but not always.Most times I fly an A10A because I have to relearn aircraft due to not flying one for a long period of time.Its an issue that's getting addresed by ED with a new Lock on modern aircraft product.And in DCS you can (and I do) jump from asset to asset in game play.I'd really like to see the day when DCS does armor modules....

Last edited by Woofie_Dog; 07/03/19 07:17 PM.
#4481245 - 07/03/19 07:01 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Woofie_Dog]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Ronin_germany Offline
Junior Member
Ronin_germany  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
[quote=Ronin_germany][quote=Woofie_Dog]

C...

They already committed that sacrilege with the chally .And lets face it...even a fully playable asset's fidelity isn't 100 percent in anyway shape or form(not compared to DCS anyway).But I see it as I do in DCS...A FC version of a Mig-29 is 100 times better than not having a Mig to fly.If I had a choice...of course I'd pick an A10C level version...but not always.Most times I fly an A10A because I have to relearn aircraft due to not flying one for a long period of time.Its an issue that's getting addresed by ED with a new Lock on modern aircraft product.And in DCS you can (and I do) jump from asset to asset in game play.


The FCS of the CR2 is quiete up to standart, thats what counts for me.
A generic Weapon system just to gun, even if it has the outside apperance of another tank does nothing for me...nah thanks.

And in I assume in DCS you can not jump from asset to asset, if you do not own the model for it....

Last edited by Ronin_germany; 07/03/19 07:02 PM.

NEC CUPIAS, NEC METUAS
#4481249 - 07/03/19 07:20 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ronin_germany]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Woofie_Dog Offline
Junior Member
Woofie_Dog  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by Ronin_germany
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
[quote=Ronin_germany][quote=Woofie_Dog]

C...

They already committed that sacrilege with the chally .And lets face it...even a fully playable asset's fidelity isn't 100 percent in anyway shape or form(not compared to DCS anyway).But I see it as I do in DCS...A FC version of a Mig-29 is 100 times better than not having a Mig to fly.If I had a choice...of course I'd pick an A10C level version...but not always.Most times I fly an A10A because I have to relearn aircraft due to not flying one for a long period of time.Its an issue that's getting addresed by ED with a new Lock on modern aircraft product.And in DCS you can (and I do) jump from asset to asset in game play.


The FCS of the CR2 is quiete up to standart, thats what counts for me.
A generic Weapon system just to gun, even if it has the outside apperance of another tank does nothing for me...nah thanks.

And in I assume in DCS you can not jump from asset to asset, if you do not own the model for it....


Make no mistake...I'm not comparing tank to tank with DCS..I am comparing the "fidelity" of its assets though...say the blackshark,A10C or the hornet ,to an Esim leopard or Abrams.NO contest there.They are waaayyy different standards.
As for jumping ...yes and no...depends.Example...I can jump from tank to tank to APC etc....but i own combined arms.But I can't jump to a Mig-19...Don't own it.

Last edited by Woofie_Dog; 07/03/19 07:35 PM.
#4481251 - 07/03/19 07:34 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Woofie_Dog]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Ronin_germany Offline
Junior Member
Ronin_germany  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
Originally Posted by Ronin_germany
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
[quote=Ronin_germany][quote=Woofie_Dog]

C...

They already committed that sacrilege with the chally .And lets face it...even a fully playable asset's fidelity isn't 100 percent in anyway shape or form(not compared to DCS anyway).But I see it as I do in DCS...A FC version of a Mig-29 is 100 times better than not having a Mig to fly.If I had a choice...of course I'd pick an A10C level version...but not always.Most times I fly an A10A because I have to relearn aircraft due to not flying one for a long period of time.Its an issue that's getting addresed by ED with a new Lock on modern aircraft product.And in DCS you can (and I do) jump from asset to asset in game play.


The FCS of the CR2 is quiete up to standart, thats what counts for me.
A generic Weapon system just to gun, even if it has the outside apperance of another tank does nothing for me...nah thanks.

And in I assume in DCS you can not jump from asset to asset, if you do not own the model for it....


Make no mistake...I'm not comparing tank to tank with DCS..I am comparing the "fidelity" of its assets though...say the blackshark,A10C or the hornet ,to an Esim leopard or Abrams.NO contest there.They are waaayyy different standards.


On one side you seem to say ArmA level tank models are good enough, then you bring on DCS level of model fidelity...what is it the?

Helicopter are a bit more complex the tanks, so I'm not sure what you are comparing here. What do you think is missing in SB's M1 and Leo models?


NEC CUPIAS, NEC METUAS
#4481254 - 07/03/19 07:43 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ronin_germany]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Woofie_Dog Offline
Junior Member
Woofie_Dog  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by Ronin_germany
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
Originally Posted by Ronin_germany
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
[quote=Ronin_germany][quote=Woofie_Dog]

C...

They already committed that sacrilege with the chally .And lets face it...even a fully playable asset's fidelity isn't 100 percent in anyway shape or form(not compared to DCS anyway).But I see it as I do in DCS...A FC version of a Mig-29 is 100 times better than not having a Mig to fly.If I had a choice...of course I'd pick an A10C level version...but not always.Most times I fly an A10A because I have to relearn aircraft due to not flying one for a long period of time.Its an issue that's getting addresed by ED with a new Lock on modern aircraft product.And in DCS you can (and I do) jump from asset to asset in game play.


The FCS of the CR2 is quiete up to standart, thats what counts for me.
A generic Weapon system just to gun, even if it has the outside apperance of another tank does nothing for me...nah thanks.

And in I assume in DCS you can not jump from asset to asset, if you do not own the model for it....


Make no mistake...I'm not comparing tank to tank with DCS..I am comparing the "fidelity" of its assets though...say the blackshark,A10C or the hornet ,to an Esim leopard or Abrams.NO contest there.They are waaayyy different standards.


On one side you seem to say ArmA level tank models are good enough, then you bring on DCS level of model fidelity...what is it the?

Helicopter are a bit more complex the tanks, so I'm not sure what you are comparing here. What do you think is missing in SB's M1 and Leo models?


I thought it was obvious...You have to keep track of context of the whole conversation

I say arma models are just as good as esim in non playable realm yet are playable in arma. IE the new armata. New game asset...big whoop, its not playable.
I say arma has a huge jump on gaming assets in terms of type...thus the helo reference (and others)
I say in the context of fidelity...DCS is superior. ie the leopard,abrams vs A10 blah blah comment.
Keep the context of a continuing discussion...in context.

Last edited by Woofie_Dog; 07/03/19 07:44 PM.
#4481255 - 07/03/19 07:46 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Woofie_Dog]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Ronin_germany Offline
Junior Member
Ronin_germany  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
Originally Posted by Ronin_germany
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
Originally Posted by Ronin_germany
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
[quote=Ronin_germany][quote=Woofie_Dog]

C...

They already committed that sacrilege with the chally .And lets face it...even a fully playable asset's fidelity isn't 100 percent in anyway shape or form(not compared to DCS anyway).But I see it as I do in DCS...A FC version of a Mig-29 is 100 times better than not having a Mig to fly.If I had a choice...of course I'd pick an A10C level version...but not always.Most times I fly an A10A because I have to relearn aircraft due to not flying one for a long period of time.Its an issue that's getting addresed by ED with a new Lock on modern aircraft product.And in DCS you can (and I do) jump from asset to asset in game play.


The FCS of the CR2 is quiete up to standart, thats what counts for me.
A generic Weapon system just to gun, even if it has the outside apperance of another tank does nothing for me...nah thanks.

And in I assume in DCS you can not jump from asset to asset, if you do not own the model for it....


Make no mistake...I'm not comparing tank to tank with DCS..I am comparing the "fidelity" of its assets though...say the blackshark,A10C or the hornet ,to an Esim leopard or Abrams.NO contest there.They are waaayyy different standards.


On one side you seem to say ArmA level tank models are good enough, then you bring on DCS level of model fidelity...what is it the?

Helicopter are a bit more complex the tanks, so I'm not sure what you are comparing here. What do you think is missing in SB's M1 and Leo models?


I thought it was obvious...You have to keep track of context of the whole conversation

I say arma models are just as good as esim in non playable realm yet are playable in arma. IE the new armata. New game asset...big whoop, its not playable.
I say arma has a huge jump on gaming assets in terms of type...thus the helo reference (and others)
I say in the context of fidelity...DCS is superior. ie the leopard,abrams vs A10 blah blah comment.
Keep the context of a continuing discussion...in context.


So, what do you think is missing in the Leopard and M1 models?

As for ArmA model style: Again, I rather have esim not wast resources in pointless "fake" vehicle functions, but model working ones. The non playables are there as targets.


NEC CUPIAS, NEC METUAS
#4481257 - 07/03/19 08:01 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ronin_germany]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Woofie_Dog Offline
Junior Member
Woofie_Dog  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Off the top of my head???...comparing fidelity to DCS?? A driver position,a loader position.

Better to have a 75%(since remaining 25% would be guess work I would imagine) realistic T-XX to man then shooting from a 3rd person AI position....hands down.But I also think there is enough info out there to get it better than 75%.Hell,I just saw a news article that suggested that Pro Russian T-72's in Ukraine are using french thermals by THALES....why not model that system for OPFOR.(addressing my wish for a thermal OPFOR tank)
Ideally...OPFOR should be HUMAN and with THERMALS...same as BLUEFOR in a NATO vs Soviet/RUSSIAN FEDERATION scenario.
As for the pointless "fake" vehicle functions"comment...what about leo's vs abrams filling in for Russia???which is what usually happens in our multi-player games.Most of the time...not all. Now that's FAKE.

I take that back...depends on the mission creator ,so maybe not most or maybe most depending (disclaimer)hell its all over the place depending who your playing with.

Last edited by Woofie_Dog; 07/03/19 08:39 PM.
Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Meatsheild, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Ratnik shovel mini review
by Crane Hunter. 02/26/20 06:27 AM
Smithsonian Open Access?
by Rick_Rawlings. 02/26/20 05:21 AM
When the live song beats the studio version...
by Zamzow. 02/26/20 03:55 AM
Mussolini speaks in Engish!
by PanzerMeyer. 02/25/20 05:08 PM
Brut force melody hacking
by Red2112. 02/25/20 11:41 AM
I just had a threesome at the doctors!
by Ajay. 02/25/20 04:59 AM
Original Longbow Gold on Win 10?
by TerribleTwo. 02/25/20 12:39 AM
What's the longest movie you've seen in the theater?
by PanzerMeyer. 02/24/20 04:18 PM
'Microjets' are so cool.
by MarkG. 02/24/20 05:41 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0